Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No sympathy from me, period. I despise the Confederate flag and everything the Confederate cause stands for. The Confederate flag represents the Confederate cause. The Confederate cause was a cause dedicated to keeping slavery in the Southern states. That is a big part in why the former Confederate states wanted secession. They want to keep slavery.
Southern heritage? Is the Confederate flag really something one would want to represent their heritage with? A symbol so divisive and representing a reprehensible cause?
Here is more to ask. A majority of Black Americans are from the South/have southern roots. Why aren't Black Americans claiming the Confederate flag as their Southern heritage?
There's way more to be proud of in the South than the flag of a traitorous, failed coup.
I agree. I'm sick of that damned flag.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Sometimes, s*** has to change regardless of the economic impacts. I'm sure there were a lot of people that were employed in Nazi concentration camps as well, the rest of the world had to step in and put a stop to that. Southern slavery is no different, except for the identity of the entity stepping in to force the change.
I sympathize with your perspective, but the scale of a decades-long depression is pretty behemoth as "economic impacts" go. While I do not defend slavery in any way, I can empathize with people who were in a position of seeing economic ruin, not just for themselves and for their families, but for an entire region of the country.
Well, when you're a slave, none of that matters to you. When the economy is rooted in slavery, little to no pity from me.
I concur with your remarks. But the North played a role in rooting the Southern economy in slavery. Banks and insurance companies in the north profited handsomely from slavery. And didn't face any liability if slavery were ended. Only the South faced a Great Depression that dwarves the Great Depression of the 1930's.
There's way more to be proud of in the South than the flag of a traitorous, failed coup.
I agree. I'm sick of that damned flag.
I agree that there are more things that the South has to be proud of. For starters, the music. Country music, jazz, blues, bluegrass, gospel, that came out of the South. So many musical influences in America have come from the South. So many writers are from the South. William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Richard Wright, Nikki Giovanni, John Grisham, Eudora Welty, etc.
Anyone watch Muppet Babies or the Muppet Show as kids? The creator, Jim Henson, is from Mississippi. Kermit the frog is based one of Jim Henson's childhood friends from Mississippi. If anyone has ever watched the show Doug on Nickelodeon during the 90s, the creator of that show is Jim Jinkins, who is a Virginia native. Bluffington, where the show is set, is loosely based on Jinkins home town of Richmond.
In some ways, the South has risen, but as part of the USA. It has risen in the form of Atlanta (which was torched during the Civil War), Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh, Northern Virginia, Charleston. Consider this. North Carolina is home to a major research/technology corridor (the Research Triangle). Atlanta is home to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Chick-Fil-A, Home Depot, CNN(and I've been to the CNN building a few times. Fun place), Delta Air Lines, Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (world's busiest airport), hosting the very first Super Bowl of the 21st century(and it just hosted its 2nd Super Bowl this past Sunday), hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics. Charlotte,NC is a major financial hub in the USA. It is home to Bank of America. Nashville is growing considerably. Many people move there to making it country music. Others have moved to the Greater Nashville area because the automobile industry establishing factories in the area.
The South has many things to be proud of. There's no point in being proud of the flag of a traitorous, failed coup.
I concur with your remarks. But the North played a role in rooting the Southern economy in slavery. Banks and insurance companies in the north profited handsomely from slavery. And didn't face any liability if slavery were ended. Only the South faced a Great Depression that dwarves the Great Depression of the 1930's.
High finance never incurs that kind of risk in any endeavor. Not then and not now. They lent and the plantation owners borrowed. If anything they ended a very lucrative stream of money from the south, in order to end slavery.
I concur with your remarks. But the North played a role in rooting the Southern economy in slavery. Banks and insurance companies in the north profited handsomely from slavery. And didn't face any liability if slavery were ended. Only the South faced a Great Depression that dwarves the Great Depression of the 1930's.
And I'm not saying the North was any better. The North could have put an end to it by not buying from the slave states, by not financing their economies.
The South would have certainly been afraid to lose their economy if slavery had been abolished. Being a descendant of slaves though, this is what I see. I would have been a slave back then.
I look at this matter from a perspective of right and wrong. It would have hurt the South's economy. But if the economy is based on chattel enslavement of other human beings, it is an economy that needs to fall. It goes against what America is suppose to be about.
High finance never incurs that kind of risk in any endeavor. Not then and not now. They lent and the plantation owners borrowed. If anything they ended a very lucrative stream of money from the south, in order to end slavery.
No, they stood to obtain direct ownership of the stream of money from the south. If the borrower couldn't pay, the borrower forfeited all his assets. Do not try to characterize this as the banks and insurance companies who loaned money to purchase and who insured slaves as having any moral superiority.
And I'm not saying the North was any better. The North could have put an end to it by not buying from the slave states, by not financing their economies.
The South would have certainly been afraid to lose their economy if slavery had been abolished. Being a descendant of slaves though, this is what I see. I would have been a slave back then.
I look at this matter from a perspective of right and wrong. It would have hurt the South's economy. But if the economy is based on chattel enslavement of other human beings, it is an economy that needs to fall. It goes against what America is suppose to be about.
I understand your perspective. I cannot say enough bad things about the institution of slavery. As I've said before, slavery is about de-humanizing people. And there is nothing more evil than that. All I am saying is that today we've fallen into the habit of over-simplifying the Civil War. And it was more complex than South bad North good. I think that complexity carries through into the modern world when it comes to its symbols. And keeping that in mind helps us to understand each other, even when the other offends the heck out of us.
No, they stood to obtain direct ownership of the stream of money from the south. If the borrower couldn't pay, the borrower forfeited all his assets. Do not try to characterize this as the banks and insurance companies who loaned money to purchase and who insured slaves as having any moral superiority.
Far be it from me to suggest bankers are morally superior. They recognized that their revenue stream would be impacted even more if the south were a whole new country, I'm sure.
Far be it from me to suggest bankers are morally superior. They recognized that their revenue stream would be impacted even more if the south were a whole new country, I'm sure.
Actually, that's not true. The South had an agrarian economy. Agrarian economies are rich in land, poor in money. The growers would still have needed to take out loans, and the Northern bankers were the people giving out loans. So even if the South were a whole new country, it wouldn't have had much impact on the bankers. You are, moreover, looking at this from a modern perspective. Prior to the Civil War, the states were much more autonomous entities. It was a collection of independent states who had contracted to work together. It was after the Civil War, and as a result of the Civil War, that the federal government gained so much power. So, in a sense, the Southern growers were already dealing with a separate country, albeit one they had contracted to join with in a union of separate countries, when they obtained loans and insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
